Easing The QCO Load: Can This High-Level Committee Tackle BIS Certification Bottlenecks After Rising Industry Concerns?

As India advances its regulatory reform agenda, the government is focusing on challenges businesses face from Quality Control Orders (QCOs). These mandates require companies to secure Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification before selling or importing a wide range of products, from steel and polymers to electronics and toys.

A high-level committee chaired by former Cabinet Secretary and NITI Aayog member Rajiv Gauba has now begun consultations to review how these requirements are playing out on the ground. Originally intended to guarantee product quality and protect consumers, QCOs have increasingly come under fire for delays, compliance costs, and capacity bottlenecks.

Industry groups warn that the rules are hurting supply chains and eroding competitiveness, particularly for smaller firms.

Reform Mandate from the Top

The Gauba panel, set up on 19 August 2025, was announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day speech. He stressed the need to rewrite outdated laws and procedures to match the demands of a globalised 21st century economy.

“Current rules, laws, policies, and procedures must be redrafted to suit the 21st century, to fit the global environment, and to align with the vision of making Bharat a developed nation by 2047,” Modi declared.

Rajiv Gauba, former Cabinet Secretary of India, led key governance and reform initiatives. He played a vital role in India’s COVID-19 response, Ease of Doing Business, compliance reduction, and decriminalisation of minor offences. Earlier, he spearheaded Smart Cities Mission, AMRUT, Swachh Bharat Urban, and major urban governance reforms.

The committee he now heads brings together senior secretaries, economists, and technocrats. It is tasked with both reducing compliance burdens and enhancing the ease of doing business and living.

Concerns Set To Come Before the Gauba Panel on QCOs

Originally introduced as part of the government’s self-reliant India strategy, QCOs are intended to curb low-quality imports and support domestic manufacturers. Over time, however, the scope has expanded rapidly to cover a wide range of industries.

The impact has been uneven.

One, certification requires significant investment in testing facilities, machinery upgrades, documentation, and skilled manpower. Larger corporations can absorb these costs but they often overwhelm small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Two, the process of obtaining BIS certification can stretch over six months, involving inspections, testing, substantial fees, performance guarantees, and recurring audits, particularly under the Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme (FMCS).

Swarajya previously reported on institutional capacity and industry concerns, particularly in relation to the growing number of products covered under QCOs.

For small overseas manufacturers producing modest volumes, the costs and process are prohibitive, according to domestic importers. This means limiting the number of foreign suppliers for Indian buyers.

Three, only the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is authorised to certify that suppliers, both foreign and domestic, comply with prescribed standards.

This gives BIS a central role in inspections and approvals, but the institutional capacity has not grown at the same pace as the regulatory expansion. This mismatch has created bottlenecks, with approvals lagging and businesses left in limbo.

For example, in the steel sector, importers say restrictions have made it more difficult for SMEs to secure affordable raw materials, driving up costs and undermining competitiveness.  

QCOs have been enforced with barely a day’s notice, leaving shipments stranded at ports and contracts cancelled. With suppliers constrained, many SMEs saw their businesses stall altogether, with no imports or enough domestic suppliers to fulfil the demand.

Experts also point to grey areas in the inspection process that may lead to inconsistencies, sometimes influenced by broader geopolitical considerations, raising concerns about transparency.

As per reports, the timing and selective enforcement of the order have fuelled suspicions of regulatory capture. In one instance, a leading stainless-steel producer is said to have secured BIS certification for its foreign suppliers just before the QCO took effect, and then raised prices soon after its release.

Four, another persistent weakness lies in how industry consultation is handled before new standards are enforced. In the case of IS 208 (standards for door handles), the QCO was applied after limited inputs were received from manufacturers during the consultation stage.

However, once enforcement began, many manufacturers flagged problems with the specifications. These were issues that could have been discussed earlier with more active engagement. This shows a two-way gap. The government needs better ways to gather feedback, and industry must respond properly when asked.

Five, the ripple effects of these challenges could undermine India’s broader manufacturing ambitions. Faced with mounting costs and delays, SMEs may look to expand in countries with more predictable and supportive regulatory environments. Unless India creates a facilitative framework at home, it risks driving away the very businesses it seeks to strengthen under its self-reliance strategy.

The Committee’s Agenda

Industry bodies continue to claim that the BIS approval process functions less as a safeguard and more as a bottleneck. Thus, an urgent top-level review with fair and transparent rules was badly needed.

At the same time, quality regulations cannot be dismissed. They are necessary not only to protect consumers but also to advance India’s manufacturing ambitions.

A senior industry official recalled that India has had a significant deficit in technical regulations. This gap allowed many products to enter Indian markets without checks, including medical devices, telecom equipment, toys, textiles, and other critical sectors.

This shows that strong regulations are important. However, their implementation can and must be simplified to address industry concerns.

The Gauba panel has been tasked to confront these concerns directly, and is expected to have several potential solutions under active consideration.

As per reports, one area of focus is the adoption of digital mechanisms and self-certification models. These measures could streamline paperwork, reduce waiting times, and allow trusted, compliant firms to operate.

Another reform under discussion is the introduction of third-party inspections. This move could widen institutional capacity and relieve the mounting pressure on an overstretched regulatory apparatus.

BIS has also been asked to present a comprehensive record of grievances and complaints from both industry stakeholders and consumers.

Adding to this, officials point out that India’s BIS-only inspection and certification model is not aligned with global practice. To remain competitive, amendments will be required to make it compatible with developed economies and to enable mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) for trade.

Further, simplified conformity assessment procedures could be applied to raw materials and components, where checks are strictly necessary.

Additionally, it is important to conduct regulatory impact assessments before issuing any new QCOs. This would evaluate how simple or complex the compliance is, industry readiness, and institutional capacity, ensuring that rules remain realistic and effective.

Crucially, the reform effort shows a broader attempt to design a regulatory framework where quality assurance and efficiency can coexist, protecting consumers without punishing businesses.